Those who take for granted what foreigners say about the Philippines may be missing the point. John Andrews’ article on the country in the Economist’s Pocket Asia (available in most airports in Asia) describes accurately what is wrong with the Philippines. He is not the first journalist to write the Philippines could be one of Asia’s most prosperous economies because of its natural resources – timber, coconut, minerals and so on. That observation has sharpened of late. The failure of successive governments to address its economic problems seem to many to have become endemic.
We were given an extraordinary opportunity when the world economy recovered in the late 1980s. With international support for Mrs. Aquino it was hoped that the economy would be boosted. But Mr. Andrews writes that hope for growth quickly evaporated when it finally sunk in that the housewife, no matter how nobly motivated, was just not up to the task. "By the end of 1980s Filipinos had managed to recover economically only to the point they had been at ten years earlier," Andrews continues. But he ends with a hopeful note that despite its problems, its potential can still be tapped, if political stability can be sustained." That may be a tall order but we should approach our problem-solving with that in mind. How can we sustain stability? If I have said again and again the answer is parliamentary federal government it is because presidential elections whether for competent or incompetent persons are the greatest source of instability. Look at what is happening now. The problem is not just the economy but also the culture. Take the economic dictum that higher savings means spending less and within one’s means. This is discouraged by a mighty social engine driven by status symbols.
The opportunities missed were not just economic. In another column, I mentioned the time to bring Marcos’ cronies to task was during Aquino’s time. But this was done in fits and starts and hardly recommended a settling of scores. I asked former Sandiganbayan Justice Francis Garchitorena just why the trial of the cases dragged on forever. What about the coco levy? It was beginning to look to many that he was under the pay of Danding Cojuangco. He said it was decided very early on in the Aquino government that the new government would follow strictly the requirements of law, for example, the rules of evidence. It didn’t matter how Marcos and his cronies deliberately made sure that evidence would be difficult to come by. That policy meant we would see no meaningful convictions. Imelda is traipsing around the world and Danding Cojuangco has more financial power than he ever had in Marcos’s time. Having missed that opportunity to prosecute and convict the guilty why should we now wonder why the country is in such a mess. Marcos era crimes fester because of that failure. The best thing the government can do now is make the best of a bad situation. The United Nations tribunal for war crimes in the Balkans, seeing the folly of continuing trials has adopted a strategy of plea bargains. I am not saying we should do the same with Marcos’s cronies but some creative thinking ought to be done so we can close the book on that period. There are other ways short of exonerating the guilty but we should find a new legal strategy or we will never get out of the political stalemate of the post-Marcos period.
"Our present constitution is completely unfit for the Philippines and may be a primary reason for our demise. The American system is extremely wasteful and conducive to graft and corruption. Canada has a much better system and should be one of our models instead. Offhand and in a concise form I would propose the following: Abolish the Senate, the House to be composed of elected representatives of districts small enough so candidates can campaign only in their districts at very little expense and good people will have a chance to be elected. A district may have about 400,000 population.
The introduction of bills can only be done by the party in power. No crossover from one party to another of elected MPs while in office to be allowed and the opposition’s job is to fiscalize only. The departments in the executive should be headed by an elected representative belonging to the majority in order to be able to implement the majority agenda. Each department will introduce bills prepared by professionals in that department in line with the program of the majority. There should not be any confirmation committees, investigation committees, appointment and other committees. A bill goes directly to the house or assembly for debate and fiscalizing. This will eliminate all the time wasted in different committees where horse trading and bribery and graft happen, puts the responsibility of governance on the elected majority squarely. A good financial program as presented by the representative as head of the finance department will enhance his reputation. A good educational program will enhance the education department and its head and so on.
The role of an elected official is to legislate only. All investigations are to be done by an independent non-political committees to be formed for the particular case in point. The head of the assembly or parliament or house whatever you may call it should come from the party that gets more votes in a general election otherwise the head of the party in power. As in a parliamentary system the head of the party or the assembly can be changed by the party itself. Election campaign is limited to 40 days and is strictly enforced. A complete reformation is needed in all the government departments especially the judiciary, finance, defense. Election expenses should be limited and contributions also be limited. The candidate usually gets most of his expenses from the party and contributors to the party or candidate are open to scrutiny by the public and press. It must be transparent!! This proposal in very brief summary. The details can be worked out to conform with the Philippines and local idiosyncrasies. If I have sent this proposal, it is more or less how Canada functions."